Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Colombine shootings
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I'd say the odds are very very slim. As far as the DoJ are concerned, it's a pistol, not a replica.Originally posted by Spike
hmm. well it'd be a replica. that's altered so one can only fire blanks. making it fire live rounds would be extremely awkward (you'd have to get a new barrel etc etc.).....so one'd have no chance of getting one here?
Well, odds are rather high if noone x-rays it, or writes "firearm" anywhere on it, and it's not searched, and the people sending it to you don't want offical paperwork.and one other question...what'd happen if one bought one online (from america or wherever) and just told them to send it to that person address...what're the odds of actually getting it?
thanks
I don't normally smuggle arms so I'm not expert, you understand
But get caught with it, and you're in for a rather akward time of it at best...
...and with McDowell ensconsed, I'd not be predicting the best case scenario...0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Both are perfectly legal so long as the m60's been decomissioned...Originally posted by Spike
i thought you didny need a licence for a replica...curses to those politicians....ah well. i guess ill just get a non-firing m60 or a bunch of swords instead
Which goes to show how the gun control laws are a bit naff - I mean, I can't own an air pistol, but I could go crawling round the wicklow hills at 3 in the morning with a sniper rifle, night vision scope and silencer, or a semi-automatic shotgun, and it'd be perfectly legal...0 -
-
-
-
-
-
No, it isn't, any more than a power saw or a car are deadly weapons, i.e. it can act as a deadly weapon, but that is not it's primary purpose.Originally posted by sovtek
I realize it's often enough used for target practice, other than that it is primarily a deadly weapon.
It was originally made for hunting rodents, birds and other small varmints for food.While I'm not sure what exactly the original .22 was invented for it certainly can be used as a dangerous and lethal weapon. Often so it is in America.
And it is not by any means seen as "often" the cause of death in shootings in the states. You're thinking of .32, .38, .45 and 9mm rounds fired from pistols. And when you actually look more closely at the statistics (namely, looking at who was shot, by whom and why), it turns out that the figures quoted by the supporters of gun control are wildly out of whack.
Highly unlikely, as all ranges are constructed with large berms (think a 20 foot or more tall mound of earth) as a backstop. That's a mandatory safety feature that has to be in there before you get permission to call it a range.
One line of thinking is that it's extremely dangerous because of it's range, as in if you miss your target it'll go somewhere you very well might not have intended it to or even be able to see.
And as for missing your target, I'm not a top-class shooter but I've never ever missed the black, even outdoors in high wind, and that means that at 50m I've never missed the centre of the target by more than five or six centimetres, not once in a decade. And that's the normal standard for a target shooter. This isn't some kind of rapid-fire cowboy sport. Hell, Javelin throwing has caused more injuries than target shooting in actual competitions...
Glad to be able to put more facts into the argument, so ask as many questions as you wantSorry I'm still just trying to understand your original post in response to Zaphod.Originally posted by Spike
as far as i can remeber, .22 rounds have a range of aprox. 1.5 miles don't they? but i assume itd depend on the rifle its fired from aswell....not much id think though.
Again, it's dependent on the actual round, not the calibre. .22 LR (long rifle) rounds have a range of about three quarters of a mile, in that that's as far as they'll go. .22 Hornet rounds, you're looking at much more than twice that.0 -
Originally posted by Sparks
No, it isn't, any more than a power saw or a car are deadly weapons, i.e. it can act as a deadly weapon, but that is not it's primary purpose.
I disagree there. Cars and power tools are functional and useful. A gun (even a target rifle/pistol) is made to shoot things. While I'm not disparaging target shooting at all, you can't honestly call a gun a tool (a vivid memory of a McGyver episode comes to mind where he uses a revolver, minus it's cylinder, to close a valve on a fuel line. Then there's Homer's episode with the gun
).
Not that I'm saying that target rifles should be banned either.And it is not by any means seen as "often" the cause of death in shootings in the states. You're thinking of .32, .38, .45 and 9mm rounds fired from pistols.
Yes more often they are pistols, but many have been rifles as well. No I don't have stats (neither did you post any yourself ) but I lived in America most of my life and you often heard of .22 being used in shootings and other crimes.And when you actually look more closely at the statistics (namely, looking at who was shot, by whom and why), it turns out that the figures quoted by the supporters of gun control are wildly out of whack.
You may very well be right but do you have any stats to post backing that up?Highly unlikely, as all ranges are constructed with large berms (think a 20 foot or more tall mound of earth) as a backstop. That's a mandatory safety feature that has to be in there before you get permission to call it a range.
And as for missing your target, I'm not a top-class shooter but I've never ever missed the black, even outdoors in high wind, and that means that at 50m I've never missed the centre of the target by more than five or six centimetres, not once in a decade. And that's the normal standard for a target shooter. This isn't some kind of rapid-fire cowboy sport. Hell, Javelin throwing has caused more injuries than target shooting in actual competitions...
I wasn't really talking about shooting ranges and I don't doubt that well maintained ranges are safe.
I was talking more about uncontrolled conditions, like hunting.
I got a .22 when I was 12 and my dad put the fear of allah into me about safety.Again, it's dependent on the actual round, not the calibre. .22 LR (long rifle) rounds have a range of about three quarters of a mile, in that that's as far as they'll go. .22 Hornet rounds, you're looking at much more than twice that.
That's a very long distance and seems to me a dangerous aspect of the .22.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Originally posted by Sparks
You couldn't be further from the truth. Guns are not only useful tools, they are
life-preserving tools.
No I couldn't be further from agreeing with you or what you define as truth.
There's a difference.Against criminals, there are up to two million defensive
uses of firearms per year in the US : http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
Those stats are based on polls and not police reports. That means that someone might have perceived a threat and brought out a gun, but that doesn't mean that they were actually in any danger nor that brandishing a gun was warranted.Against animals, I don't have statistics - but it's telling that it's illegal to
fly over parts of alaska in a small plane, or trek through the woods, without a
firearm to protect yourself.
I haven't ever heard of such a law, but then I've never been to the most sparsely populated area of America.Similar laws apply in other parts of the world, and
just because there isn't a law saying you have to carry a firearm to defend
yourself against predators doesn't mean that to not do so would be foolish.
All those wild animals in New York or Dallas are something I really should arm myself against...but I guess I'm a fool... or just lazy.Apart from the obvious defensive role, firearms have many other uses from hunting
for food to rehabilitating stroke victims.
Like I said I'm not for banning all guns in all cases. I think the laws are basically on track here. Some might be too restrictive (the air pistol thing is a bit much methinks) but the basic principle I agree with.
As far as rehab for stroke victims, that's the activity and not the gun itself. There are other ways to rehabilitate stroke victims (again I'm not against target shooting either).They may not be as useful as cars, but then again, they don't kill as many
people either - by a factor of nearly ten in the US in 2000. (Stats below).
Which is why I'm heavily in favor of public transport and less cars. If you haven't noticed a car accident means that it has been misused as well.
I'd suspect there are far more cars than there are guns.
The latter being far more efficient at killing.But I'm curious - define "target rifle". Is it a rifle used for target shooting? Because that includes, quite legitimately -in very large competitions too - rifles like the Barrett light 50, the AR-15 and the Colt .45 ...
I wasn't aware that AR-15's were legal in Ireland.From the FBI's Uniform Crime Report:
Murder Victims by Weapon, 1997-2001
Weapon 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Total 15,837 14,276 13,011 13,230 13,752
Total firearms: 10,729 9,257 8,480 8,661 8,719
Handguns 8,441 7,430 6,658 6,778 6,790
Rifles 638 548 400 411 389
Shotguns 643 633 531 485 497
Other guns 35 16 92 53 58
Firearms,
type not stated 972 630 799 934 985
Knives or cutting
instruments 2,055 1,899 1,712 1,782 1,796
Blunt objects (clubs,
hammers, etc.) 724 755 756 617 661
Personal weapons (hands,
fists, feet, etc.) 1,010 964 885 927 925
Poison 6 6 11 8 10
Explosives 8 10 0 9 4
Fire 140 132 133 134 104
Narcotics 37 35 26 20 34
Drowning 34 28 28 15 23
Strangulation 224 213 190 166 152
Asphyxiation 88 101 106 92 112
Other weapons or
weapons not stated 782 876 684 799 1,212
So as you can see, rifles make up around 5% of all homicides with firearms
annually for that five-year period. What should be noted, however, is that a
homicide is a crime, and represents a misuse of the firearm used. There are
already strict laws regarding that. Now if those laws were strictly enforced...
But it's so much easier to call for banning guns, so that gets done more.
It's funny that guns are legal and cause far more deaths per year than narcotics but we have a worldwide "war" against them. Anyway that's another thread.....
There are quite alot of those "misuses" in America per yer. Compare them to places like Ireland and the UK where they are illegal and you have a great case for banning of hanguns and non-sport rifles.As to accidental deaths, which are the real statistics:
Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates) (Chart compiled by GunCite.
Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition,
pp. 8-9, 84)
Accident Type Age
0-4 5-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+ Total
All Automobile 900 1,500 10,500 13,300 9,200 2,700 4,900 43,000
Falls 70 70 210 950 1,900 1,700 11,300 16,200
Poisoning 60 40 800 6,800 3,200 300 500 11,700
Pedestrian 250 300 750 1,300 1,400 450 850 5,300
Drowning 450 350 700 1,250 650 230 270 3,900
Fires, burns 400 260 240 700 800 500 700 3,600
Suffocation 100 20 30 250 400 500 2,100 3,400
Firearms 20 60 150 190 110 30 40 600
Poisoning(gas) 10 10 70 120 80 40 70 400
All other 700 400 1,100 3,000 3,200 1,600 4,500 14,500
TOTAL 2,700 2,700 3,800 26,600 19,500 7,600 24,400 97,300
So out of 97,300 fatal accidents, a sum total of 600 were from firearms. And when it comes to children having fatal accidents with firearms, note that out of 700 fatal accidents, 20 were from firearms. There are far more dangerous things out there than guns.
And there are alot less dangerous things than either guns or cars but for some reason they are illegal or tightly controlled.
Again, compare where they are banned against where they aren't and you can see the argument.In other words, your dad trained you to hunt properly. Saying that rifles should
be banned because you could kill someone by firing a rifle in the woods without
aiming it at a target is like saying that cars ought to be banned because you
could drive one while drunk and kill someone.
I never said that hunting should be banned either. My original point was that a .22 is definitely dangerous and not really a tool. The protection against other humans and animals doesn't really make alot of sense in the context of western Europe or most of America.
Again I'm in favor of more public transport which would reduce such "misuse" in America as well as here. As well I'm in favor of banning of general gun ownership ('cept in certain circumstances) in America.
I'm anxious to hear how you would stop the epidemic of falling deaths. 0 -
-
Not when the figures show that I'm right and you're mistaken...Originally posted by sovtek
No I couldn't be further from agreeing with you or what you define as truth.
There's a difference.
As shown by rape figures worldwide, and even by the wife of our own Minister of Justice, police reports are not a reliable or indicative means of determining crime levels in many cases.Those stats are based on polls and not police reports.
Which offsets your complaint over what a perceived threat can consist of.
Pilots operating as bush pilots in Alaska are required to carry a defensive firearm. I'm not surprised you've not heard of it, it's not often bandied about. Mind you, anyone familiar with North America's indigenous predators wouldn't venture in the woods without one anyway, as a matter of common sense.I haven't ever heard of such a law, but then I've never been to the most sparsely populated area of America.
The predators in major cities are generally of the two-legged variety, and now we're back to the 2 million defensive gun uses per year figure...All those wild animals in New York or Dallas are something I really should arm myself against...but I guess I'm a fool... or just lazy.
To an extent I agree. As does, surprisingly enough, the NRA. The protest isn't to remove all current gun laws, but to enforce them rather than write new ones when the old ones (without enforcement) don't deter crime.Like I said I'm not for banning all guns in all cases. I think the laws are basically on track here.
For example, a criminal shoots a man with a pistol.
Common sense says you put the criminal in jail for the rest of his life for homicide.
The Brady proponents say you ban handguns.
You see the reason for the debate?
As far as rehab for stroke victims, that's the activity and not the gun itself. There are other ways to rehabilitate stroke victims (again I'm not against target shooting either).
There are many other treatments, true - but this one has shown exceptional promise, and can't be easily replicated without the rifle. At all. (They have tried, you know).
Nope. I've nearly been in more than one accident through factors outside my control while I was driving safely - road resurfacing on country roads at night without warning signs, idiots driving transit vans like rally cars, and so on.Which is why I'm heavily in favor of public transport and less cars. If you haven't noticed a car accident means that it has been misused as well.
Actually, I think you'll find that cars are just as efficent, and they're much easier to claim innnocence or accident over...I'd suspect there are far more cars than there are guns.
The latter being far more efficient at killing.
They're not at present, though they're used in an enormous target rifle competition in the states, the AR-15 league.I wasn't aware that AR-15's were legal in Ireland.
The War on Drugs is definitely another thread.It's funny that guns are legal and cause far more deaths per year than narcotics but we have a worldwide "war" against them. Anyway that's another thread.....
By the way, it's funnier that cars are legal and cause far more deaths per year than guns, but even recently the Gardai had a policy not to prosecute for manslaughter if you killed someone through drunken driving...
And compare the figures to places like Switzerland and Germany where they're even more easily available and have far less restrictions, but far, far, far less gun-related crime, and you have a great case for banning firearms for americans...There are quite alot of those "misuses" in America per yer. Compare them to places like Ireland and the UK where they are illegal and you have a great case for banning of hanguns and non-sport rifles.
Right on the first part, wrong on the second.I never said that hunting should be banned either. My original point was that a .22 is definitely dangerous and not really a tool.
Correct for western europe, wrong for america. "most of america" is really quite undeveloped rural area with a fair few predators like bears and cougars and so on.The protection against other humans and animals doesn't really make alot of sense in the context of western Europe or most of America.
Won't work. Switzerland and germany, remember?As well I'm in favor of banning of general gun ownership ('cept in certain circumstances) in America.
Most of western europe, in fact, has very low gun crime and (by comparison with the states) rather lax gun laws.
Now what they all do have, that the states doesn't, is the requirement that you have some training with the weapon you're licenced to own...
You can'tI'm anxious to hear how you would stop the epidemic of falling deaths.
It's a sad fact, but people die in accidents no matter what you try. And equally sad is that suicides can't be prevented either. Canada tried banning handguns to prevent suicide by handgun. Suicides by handguns fell to nearly nil - and suicides by jumping off bridges and other means jumped in the same year to bring the overall figure back up to it's original level.
That's the problem with gun control law debates - it's a difficult thing to accept that people will always kill themselves in accidents (hell, three or four people kill themselves putting on their socks in the UK every year!), and there's this great need to do something, or at least be seen to be doing something, even though there's nothing that can be done
End result - gun control laws cut into sporting and hunting uses, as well as self-defence uses, and everyone suffers.
Observe the UK. After Dunblane, the shooting community said that they would await the outcome of the offical investigation before calling for debate on the matter, out of respect for the families involved. The UK government renaged on this and announced a complete ban on handguns, despite the fact that it wasn't needed and had the police just followed the existing laws, dunblane would't have happened. End result? Half (or more) of the target shooters in the UK were forced to give up their pistols for less than their market worth, a week after the ban a school saw a dunblane-type attack by a nutter wielding kitchen knives, and now, a few years later, the level of violent gun-related crime in the UK has shot up, by up to a factor of three or four in parts of London (after all, no muggee can now be carrying a pistol, can they?).
Havelock,
Actually, a side point on this is that there have been cases of people going nuts and shooting up schools - only to be stopped by a civilian with a gun. The law school shooting a year or two ago, for example, was stopped by a teacher and a student that were carrying guns at the time. So lives were saved because people had guns.As for gun rampages in schools
And not one news service mentioned this.0
Advertisement